Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionIV. Dispositional Theories 14. Eysenck, McCrae, and
Costa’s Trait and Factor
Theories© The McGraw−Hill^437
Companies, 2009Introverts, on the other hand, find such noisy environments distracting and therefore
tend to avoid them.
In summary, research tends to support Eysenck’s notion that personality fac-
tors have a biological basis and are not simply dependent on what we have learned.
Indeed, consistent with a biological basis of personality, the major traits appear to be
consistent in most countries of the world (McCrae, 2002; Poortinga, Van de Vijver,
& van Hemert, 2002). How and when personality traits are expressed is clearly in-
fluenced by our cultural and social context. But that we all can be described on simi-
lar dimensions of personality (e.g., extraversion or neuroticism) is influenced by our
biological makeup. Personality, in short, is molded by both nature and nurture.
Traits and Academics
Personality traits are strong predictors of many aspects of life. One area that has re-
ceived a fair amount of research is the relationship between traits and academic per-
formance, as measured by standardized test scores and GPA. Researchers Erik Noftle
and Richard Robins (2007) conducted a large study in which they measured the traits
and academic outcomes of more than 10,000 students. To conduct this research, Noftle
and Robins gave undergraduates self-report questionnaires to measure their scores
on the “Big Five” traits and asked about their SAT scores and high school and col-
lege GPAs, which were then checked against university records for accuracy. The
most important trait for predicting both high school and college GPA was conscien-
tiousness. Those who are high on the trait of conscientiousness tend to have higher
GPAs in both high school and college. Recall that conscientiousness in Costa and
McCrae’s five-factor model of personality is defined as hardworking, well organized,
and punctual. Students high in conscientiousness are those who, day in and day out,
tend to make time for studying, know how to study well, and have good attendance
in class, all of which contribute to doing well in school.
The relationship between traits and SAT scores followed a different pattern
than for traits and GPA. The “Big Five” traits were not strong predictors of scores
on the math section of the SAT, but openness was related to scores on the verbal
section (Noftle & Robins, 2007). Specifically, those who scored higher on the trait
of openness were more likely to do well on the SAT verbal questions. If you think
about this, it makes sense. Those who score high on openness are imaginative, cre-
ative, and can think broadly, which can be useful approaches to difficult questions
on a test.
It may be surprising that in the discussion of predicting SAT scores from traits,
conscientiousness was not a strong predictor as it was for GPA. Yet SAT scores and
GPA, although both are general measures of academic success, are very different. A
person’s score on the SAT is more aptitude and based on one single test, whereas
GPA is more achievement and the product of years of work. It is more difficult,
through studying alone, to change one’s SAT score. It is somewhat more akin to an
intelligence test score.
Some people take the SAT multiple times, whereas other people take it but
once. These different approaches to test taking may reflect differences in the trait of
neuroticism. People who score high on neuroticism are anxious and temperamental,
whereas people who score low are calm, comfortable, and self-satisfied. Given that
Chapter 14 Eysenck, McCrae, and Costa’s Trait and Factor Theories 431